Friday, August 31, 2012

Zadie Smith: NW



Recently, I won a contest on Twitter for an advanced copy of Zadie Smith's new book NW (thanks to @PenguinCanada!). I was ecstatic to say the very least and I would have posted a review here earlier ... if it didn't take me forever to get through it. I wasn't truly invested in the story or characters until p. 184!!

The image of London (Britain) I grew up with was, as discussed in our earliest post, ancient and filled with (mostly) posh sorts running around in leather shoes and well fitted suits (so mostly men too). Or, I imagined Jane Austen's England - rolling country side, garden parties, elaborate group dances, and sewing in manorial salons. This image was entirely based on PBS/ AE (pre-Dog the Bounty Hunter) tv programming. As I explored British culture in my teens and twenties, I realized that English/ British culture was much grittier and erratic. Never in my television education of British culture (or even my first university survey course) did I encounter workers or immigration (post-colonialism). But, in fact, a whole generation of authors, academics, and artists had recuperated the life of ordinary Britons and declared it to be the more authentic experience/ identity. It was a badge of honour to speak with a thick Cockney/ Mancunian/ Scouse/ Geordie accent and terribly embarrassing to admit that one had a public school education. It's the reason, I believe, that shows like Eastenders, Coronation Street, Life on Mars, and The Only Way is Essex have such a prominent place alongside the depictions of Britain/ England that emphasize the gilded life of the landed aristocrats (Downton Abbey, Upstairs, Downstairs, Made in Chelsea). Interesting fact: in 2001, Foreign Secretary to the Social Market Foundation in London Robin Cook declared that Tikka Masala was the true national dish of the UK!

Zadie Smith has been one of the young British authorial voices that have challenged readers to futher complicate their understanding of British identity by considering the experiences of the different immigrant communities that make their homes in every section of London. In NW, we follow best friends Leah Hanwell and Natalie (Keisha) Blake as they grow up on and each move away from the Caldwell council estate in North London.

Both characters are held as examples of how one "successfully" makes something of themselves coming from disadvantaged circumstances. Natalie, unlike Leah, is determined to escape her humble beginnings. She doesn't waste time with romance or socializing. Like her boring first boyfriend Rodney, she's decided that the law will offer her refuge and nothing will deter her from her goal. This single-minded focus on fleeing a life of poverty, however, leaves her feeling empty and with a lingering fear that she doesn't have a personality. These feelings fester and keep her from enjoying the fruits of her labour (gorgeous posh husband, kids, and financial stability). Leah, in contrast, seems to drift effortlessly away from life on the estates but that doesn't mean she feels any more satisfied with her adult life than her friend. Alongside Natalie and Leah, we also meet car mechanic Felix Cooper who, unlike the other characters in this novel, is an example of someone who tries to leave the housing project through film making but doesn't quite make it.

As the lukewarm review in the New York Times pointed out, Smith's latest effort asks readers to consider questions of luck and choices in one's fate especially as it pertains to class and identity. Unlike the dominant ethos of meritocracy of postwar British politics and society, reality is much more random and class barriers remain. This theme is especially pertinent to a Britain that last year weathered days of riots in the street and continues to hear David Cameron's Tories tell that that Britons "are all in it together."

Smith's depiction of NW London is vibrant but it's also sordid and dangerous. The neighbourhoods in which these characters live are spaces in which the rich and poor (young and old) quite literally fight over space on the streets and in parks. The book opens with a young woman called Shar who knocks on Leah's door supposedly desperate for cab fare to get to the hospital. Only we learn that the story was an elaborate lie employed by the young (dirty) woman to fund a drug habit. This original meeting leads to a much more dangerous physical altercation. Later on, Natalie finds herself amongst a crowd of adults berating a pair of youths who decide to smoke on a playground. These youths are less threatening that those encountered by Leah but they are no less insistent on their right to occupy the public space with these yuppie mums.

Smith's new book is challenging in structure as well as subject matter. She swaps between narrative voices and adopts a stream of consciousness technique for a substantial portion of the book. This method is effective in conveying the real way that people speak, think and live (haphazardly rather than in a clean perfectly organized and poetic paragraphs). It is not as clear, however, why Smith manipulates the text in certain spots to mimic a text or email message a character receives. It's not a method she employs enough (as in Jonathan Safran Foer Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close for example) to convince the reader that it's essential to the story that she sets out to tell.

I can't decide if NW is a must-read. It was passed over by the Man Booker prize committee this year and I can't disagree. The story and characters feel half-baked. This is not Smith's most evocative portrayal of immigrant lives in London or modern British identity. However, Smith's insight into modern London life is unique and required reading for those who want a richer understanding of British culture.

@SloaneScholar1

Sunday, August 12, 2012

The "People's Games"? Reflections on London 2012

[Note: This is a similiar version of a post on my own blog, here. @IdleHistorian]

Throughout London 2012 I have thought back to the similarities with Vancouver in 2010. They were also presaged by much-hand wringing over the exorbitant cost, doubts over whether it was really worth the trouble, grave predictions about traffic chaos and other doom-saying. This was followed by exhilaration, over-the-top patriotism, joy, triumph, and a long-lasting warm and fuzzy glow. London 2012 has already been all this. On speed.

I follow a variety of Brits from different walks of life and political persuasions on twitter and have witnessed a roller-coaster of emotion since July 27th. It began with outright hostility, Olympic-sized portions of Eeyoreish worry and whingeing ["When Will This Nightmare End?"] about the cost, the G4S security debacle (remember them?), corporate authoritarianism, 81-year-old grannies being forced to withdraw Olympic hand-knitted dolls from church jumble sales and the like.

But then, By Jove, the Opening Ceremonies arrived and Danny Boyle was arranging Freeborn Englishmen (and women) in the green and pleasant land and children were singing Jerusalem and there were dancing nurses in a tribute to the NHS and Mr. Bean being unbelievably hilarious with a Chariots of Fire spoof and, OMG, The Queen and James Bond, and my tweeps were tweeting fast and furiously. These jaded souls who had been complaining only a day before that it would all be "rubbish" were crying, cheering and declaring that Britain was the best country ever in all history [*] and that the Ceremony showed the nation's unbounded humour and individualism and creativity (read: "Take that, Beijing!") and they'd never felt happier in all their lives and Danny Boyle for a Knighthood *this instant* while we've got Her Majesty right here!!!!

Danny Boyle's vision of pre-industrial England, before the"dark satanic mills" - reference: hymn Jerusalem and poem by William Blake
And the waves of emotion haven't let up. Team GB has truly done brilliantly. Of course everyone needed to panic for a day or two that Britain wouldn't win any medals at all, but from the first gold to Dickensian-named Bradley Wiggins dear old Blighty has been running on happy fumes. Even the acerbic and performative-cynic Charlie Brooker has been caught up in the frenzy.

There has been an uncharacteristic showing of collective emotion in Britain and among its athletes. As per one tweet: "@sarasheridan: Another gold! Only 7% of Chinese & 17% of US athletes cry on medal podium @TeamGB win blubbing gold on 37.5% ". One British friend has proffered this explanation for the "blubbering": Chinese and American athletes largely expect to be on the podium. Brits generally, having bought into the national myth of being "rubbish" at sport and inevitable failures, greet victory with these wellsprings of emotion.

There are stories aplenty to provide a backdrop for an inclusive, meritocratic Games - as modern Britain wishes to see itself. All this has left many asking: What does this say about modern Britain, national identity, or the national character? How do these reactions fit with history and received ideas of "Britishness" in this post-Imperial and multicultural landscape?

Differing political factions have been able to read into the Games the narrative they wish. Conservatives like Boris Johnson trumpet the lessons (as they see it) for free enterprise, competition, and other assorted Big Society ideas. (Gratuitous link to Boris-stuck-on-zipline meme.) For The Daily Telegraph it was an opportunity for national regeneration and ascertaining where Britain's "genius lies." For The Guardian and more left-of-centre individuals the Opening Ceremony and the Games itself are a model of an egalitarian, integrated and less class-ridden nation they would wish to realize. As one twitter said after the Boyle opener: "Britain: slightly bonkers and more socialist than some would wish, for 2000 years." There was much chatter about this "socialist" vision in light of current British politics under the Coalition Government.

It is perhaps only correct that there should be (not to sound too postmodern) "multiple meanings" of the Games. Perhaps Britain's "genius" lies in the direction of being able to equally combine both the pre-Games criticism, hatred of authoritarianism and being told what to think and do, and also a plurality of "meanings" inherent in sport and belonging. Britain has been doing its freedom-thing for awhile now. It can cope with contradiction and ambiguity - which strikes me as an exceptionally useful quality. Somehow these elements become spun into positive narratives of national identity. I do think the much-lauded British sense of humour goes a long way in this direction. The Games are now at an end, but one hopes their sense of national belonging and happy after-glow will also continue.

@idlehistorian

Friday, August 3, 2012

On medal count

Team Canada does not typically excel at the summer games. See chart below:
CANADA
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total
92 - Barcelona
7
4
7
18
98 – Atlanta
3
11
8
22
00 – Sydney
3
3
8
14
04 – Athens
3
6
3
12
08 – Beijing
3
9
6
18
12 – London*
0
2
5
7


* As of Day 6: Canada has medaled twice in synchronized diving (3 m spring board and 10 m), judo, weight lifting, silver medals in the men's and women's eight, and a bronze in the pool (100 M freestyle).

The team went to London 2012 with a projected total of 22 medals, which according to commentators is not unreasonable given that Canadian athletes have gotten more funding and attention since we found out Vancouver would be hosting the 2010 winter games. 

Without the pressure of having the world on your home turf, I think Canadians are generally content to hang out around the middle of the pack. We know we can't compete with the likes of Team USA or China. Each country had 19 medals on day 3 with China leading in the gold medal count (10). And, to be honest, we're not pushing our athletes to challenge those superhuman automatons. We cheer on our athletes to "do their best." We're genuinely pleased when they come home with a silver (Gasp! That's almost gold!! ) or bronze medal. We are also guilty of salivating at what might have been in an alternative reality. Missy Franklin has Canadian parents, dual citizenship, and loves Nova Scotia. She's basically on Team Canada. right?

I wonder what it must be like to be an athlete from Team Great Britain at these games. Surely, the crushing pressure to perform must be unbearable. How does a much-hyped athlete like Victoria Pendleton, for example, cope with disqualification?! And amid: confusion (from viewers in the New World mostly) about what went on during the Opening Ceremony as well as the organizational debacle of empty seats, the Brits don't need something else to grip over. This is how the Brits historically and currently sit: 
GREAT BRITAIN
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total
92 - Barcelona
5
3
12
20
98 – Atlanta
1
8
6
15
00 – Sydney
11
10
7
28
04 – Athens
9
9
12
30
08 – Beijing
19
13
15
47
12 – London*
0
2
2
4


*On day 3 (when I started this post), Team GB has medalled in the pool (Rebecca Addlinton, bronze in the 200 m freestyle), in the road race( Lizzie Armitstead, silver), men's team gymnastics (bronze), and equestrian (silver, team that included Zara Phillips). Now day 6, the medal count has erupted to 16 with FIVE gold medals!! Sir Chris Hoy claimed in FIFTH gold medal in the velodrome and road cyclist Mr. Sideburns (Bradley Wiggins) won the individual time trials on day 5!

There's no panic for Team GB ... yet. Though, sports commentators have noticed that the disparity in performance as compared to Beijing. The team still doesn't have a gold medal! And if we have learned anything about the British tendency/ nature to whinge about things, we should be able to see the wave of criticism about to crash into the shore. I can only this item of British pop culture (which is really how Canadians approach sport competition .... in every case except for the Stanley Cup finals between Vancouver and Boston...) at a moment like this:


You know which Brit is winning big at London 2012? Boris Johnson


@SloaneScholar1

I've been slow off the mark (sports pun there, har har) compared to my colleague, so the lack of gold medals for Team GB (previously alluded to) has been wiped away in 2-3 days of competition, standing at this moment at a glorious five. The first came from the Dickensian-named national hero Bradley Wiggins, who celebrated his victory by pursuing that other British national sport: "getting wasted."

Team GB boosters have scaled back their predictions of 70 medals somewhat, but on the whole the Brits seem on track for a great showing at the Games. The British media and public have since breathed an almost audible sigh of relief and can now get back to the usual hand-wringing about all manner of other issues. Will the weather hold up? The transport? Is London running too smoothly? Did Bumbling Boris scare the tourists all away with his talk of metropolitan chaos and thus utterly ruin businesses?

Canadians, meanwhile, as SloaneScholar1 noted, are pretty much content with a "respectable showing." Hey - Prince Harry visited Canada House ("everyone swoons")! What else does a nation need??

I believe that we still are basking in the reflected glory of Vancouver 2010 during which we *ahem* won more gold medals than ANY previous nation at a Winter Olympics (un-Canadian moment of boasting there). Not only that, but the final competition of the Games saw the famous men's ice hockey "golden goal" against the USA - the one moment that will live in the memory of Canadians of my generation. I was in the streets of Vancouver that day and it was, in a word, incredible.


To put it in perspective for the Brits: It would be like scoring a winning goal in extra time. On the last day of competition. To win a football gold medal. In Wembley Stadium. Against the Germans.


One truly wishes Team GB something approaching this ecstasy and a great remainder of the Games.


@idlehistorian

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...